This is one of the reasons why being online became the worst in 2021


New data shows that polarization of online political issues has remained unchanged since the end of 2020. This is probably not surprising if you look online last year. But the foregoing also illustrates the way in which human heads – such as abortion and migration — have changed their approach to divisions. Although people were always crazy about the internet politically, the issues that sparked the discussion changed dramatically throughout the year.

The information, which comes from a collaborative project between Zignal Labs, a deep media platform, and the University of Southern California, helps explain why political issues can be seen in 2021 as a perpetual outrage.

More

Zignal and USC agreed to produce Polarization index, which attempts to take action with the content on Twitter and calculates the amount of polarization. Since the index began to follow discussions last year, major political developments such as the January 6 terrorist attacks, the transition from Trump to the Biden government, and the release of the Covid-19 vaccine have often happened. During all this time, the amount of PI did not move.

While Twitter is by far the best way to achieve more divisions, social platforms play an important role in resolving political issues. Social networking sites such as Meta (formerly Facebook) have also come under the microscope this year, sparking new doubts about the platform’s culture and how it can address lies, distractions, and hate speech on the Internet.

There is an old academic controversy over how to test polarization, and a clear standard has not been identified. The guide provides increased polarization on 10 topics of politics – entry, policing, racial equality, abortion, voting, gun laws, climate change, low pay, covid-19 vaccine, and health change – at a rate of 1 to 100 (100 be absolute polarization) .The amount of polarization is calculated by comparing the number of links in the Twitter feed with bias and the reliability of the media that disseminates the split, assuming that the ‘less reliable source at the end of all political bias is more disruptive than the source from sources’ sources.’ reliable and stable. ”

The division of media sources based on bias and reliability comes from Chart Promotional Advertising Chart, an independent company that verifies political developments and assesses reliability based on past experience.

Why being online was so bad this year

The Polarization Index started at 85.5 at the end of 2020, which the researchers called “critical”. The goals just dropped by three points in early 2021 and have changed since then.

At the moment, immigration issues are the subject matter most tested in terms of policy, compliance with police policies, racial differences, and gun laws. In the head, polarization changes were very common, and degrees of polarization appear to be shifting from head to toe, making the overall steering point higher.

For example, fidelity to voting was the second most serious issue in Q4 of 2020 and dropped to six out of 10, returning to fifth in the second half of 2021.

A published study along with the Polarization Index also found that articles shared on popular topics were more likely to be based on unreliable, right-leaning sources. “Interaction with right-wing sources made the discussion more difficult,” the report said.

For example, this was the case for immigrants, a well-known topic: from the end of 2020 even to the third quarter of 2021, medium and low reliance sources would dominate the negotiations, and the polarization rate rose from 84.8 to 100.3 per year. The pattern corresponds to other heads that are highly polarized.

What is coming

In line with the results of a study from Zignal, it has been well documented that too much is also misleading.

Anya Schiffrin, director of the Technology, Media, and Communication program at Columbia University, says, “Much of the confusion is top-down. It’s from government officials, it comes from politicians.” Schiffrin also poses a problem due to the lack of “gate keepers” to correct the content. algorithmic systems on social media platforms tend to exaggerate extremes, which Schiffrin claims to lead to “dangerous internet”.

The proliferation of digital has led to the realization of real-life demonstrations around the world this year. Examples of these relationships are as Facebook’s role in violence after the Myanmar coup and The January 6 attack on the United States, which occurred as a result of the increasing number of electoral events.

At the request of the MIT Technology Review, Zignal researched how people interact with the various media over time in terms of electoral confidence and voter loyalty. Evidence suggests that participating in reliable left and right sources was very close to the election and around the January 6 event.

By the end of 2020, interacting with unreliable right-wing people in particular became an online issue of voter loyalty. This was also the time when the turnout was at an all-time high, reaching 95. According to the report, major divisions fueled by divisions over voter loyalty “led to the January 6 incident at the Capitol.”

Surprisingly, reliable reliant sources make up only .017% of the action on the issue of voter loyalty, while left-leaning sources account for approximately 36%.

According to a Pew Research Research at the end of November 2020, 79% of Trump voters said the 2020 presidential election did not go well, compared to 6% of Biden voters.

Another election year is approaching, and talks on the health of American democracy are underway again coming forward, putting new pressure on the media.

One for having hopeHowever, they are found across the Atlantic. The European Union is looking at two major currencies in early 2022, so-called Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, under the direction of the French government. The bill seeks to ban the use of hate speech as well as its propaganda strategy which is known to be one of the biggest barriers to propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.